Verma,
CJI Leave granted limited to the question indicated in our order dated 7.7.9
The grievance of the appellants is that our order dated .../97 ( CC.4325/97 ]
has been misconstrued to mean that the legality of allotment of plots made
under the discretionary quota even prior to 31.10.89 has been directed by that
order to be reopened and examined. It is submitted that such a
misinterpretation results from a misconstruction of certain words in that
order, namely:

"We
are constrained to observe that the accountability of the authorities who are
responsible for making these arbitrary allotments which have been rightly
cancelled by the High Court needs to be examined after their identity is fixed
in an appropriate proceeding.

In
addition, it is also expedient that any remaining allotments of the kind which
have been cancelled by the High Court should also be treated also be treated
alike. This exercise has not bee performed by the High Court in the preset
case.

It is,
therefore, expedient that as a follow up action, the High Court should proceed
to complete the exercise." It is sufficient for us to clarify that by the
above order dated 7.5.97 this Court upheld cancellation of the allotments out
of the discretionary quota made after 31.10.89 and it was further said that any
remaining allotments of the same kind should be treated alike to complete the
exercise. In other words, our order dated 7.5.97 contained the direction to
treat all allotments out of the discretionary quota made after 31.10.89 without
any exception, in order to examine the accountability of the concerned
authorities as also to avoid any discrimination between allotters subsequent to
31.10.89. That order was, therefore, concerned entirely with the allotment made
after 31.10.89 and did not refer to any allotment prior to that date. We
consider it necessary to say so to avoid any possible misinterpretation by this
Court's order dated 7.5.97.

We
may, however, add that the only question for examination by this Court in
Sanjay Jain vs. Anil Sabharwal's case being all the allotments made subsequent
to 31.10.89, our order is also not to be construed as inhibiting any
separate/independent action in respect of allotments for any other period
including period prior to 31.10.89. The appeal is disposed of with this
clarification.